VOLUME 27 / NUMBER 2 / NOV 2015 / RRP $35

2/15

THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (AIAST)

AGRICULTURAL SCIENCEPEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH AND NEWS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT.

> AIA AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION INQUIRY SUBMISSION

> AGRONOMISTS USE OF PGR – A SURVEY

> A CROP PRODUCTIVITY RESEARCH PROTOCOL FOR LONG WALL MINING

> CROP NUTRIENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

> SOLVING OUR GROUNDWATER PROBLEMS

> REPORT OF 9th INTERNATIONAL WHEAT CONFERENCE

> REDUCING GHG EMISSIONS AT THE FARM LEVEL

> DIVISIONSEVENTS’REPORTS

FEATURED ARTICLES

5150

CO

NTR

IBU

TED A

RTIC

LES

POLITICSThe political nature of emissions reduction and climate change can cause scepticism for some producers. A producer who was initially not willing to undertake a GHG calculation, felt that we were collecting the data as a means to blame agriculture for Australia’s emissions. However, after attending a workshop and once the purpose of our project was explained and the link between emissions intensity and productivity was defined the farmer was convinced of the practical purpose of the calculation. This cements the need for distilling general industry-wide information as when it is in this form it can easily be misinterpreted.

Figure 2 - Field day focussed on feed management at case study farm ‘Cranston’. The full case study is available online at: www.rmcg.com.au

CONCLUSIONThe flexibility of the ERP process that considers the individual producers’ business structure, goals and needs allows extension officers greater influence when engaging with producers. Each producer will have his or her own opinions when it comes to emissions reduction. By tailoring advice to suit their farm, assumptions from general industry-wide information can be managed.

The link between emissions and productivity is strong enough that producers can see the relevance of reducing emissions in the context of their own farm. Existing industry tools (including GHG calculators and calculations of emissions intensity) and tools developed by the ‘Tas Farming Futures’ team (e.g. NUE calculator and the ERP process) has enabled the project team, to deliver specific and targeted farm information. These tools create a legacy and can be applied by others beyond the life of the project.

REFERENCES1Getting the balance right – managing protein and energy

ratios in feed for reduced livestock emissions: Andrew Beven, ‘Cranston’, found at: http://www.rmcg.com.au/media/Projects/CC/Beven%20livestock%20case%20study%20May15.pdf

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The ‘Tas Farming Futures’ project is funded by the Australian Government.

CO

NTR

IBU

TED A

RTIC

LES

DEEP AND MISUNDERSTOOD: CAN WE SOLVE THE UNDERLYING PROBLEMS WITH OUR GROUNDWATER?Dr Turlough Guerin

Dr Turlough Guerin Ph. 0439 011 434 turlough.guerin@hotmail.com Turlough Guerin BScAgr(Hons) PhD MAIA, is a non-executive Director and Environmental Manager with over 15 years board level experience in community engagement, primary industry, sustainable transport, and heavy industry. Board highlights include the Ag Institute Australia, the Climate Alliance Limited and Orica’s Community Participation Review Committee. He has worked for a range of Blue Chip companies including Rio Tinto, Shell and First Solar, is a member of the National Safety Council of Australia, the Australian Institute of Company Directors and is an Associate Fellow of Australian Institute of Management. For the past 2 years he has managed planning approvals and compliance on the construction of Australia’s largest solar farms at Nyngan and Broken Hill, Central West NSW. At a time when labels can be more influential than legislation, and perceptions more potent than policies, are we doing enough of the right things to look after this vital element of our civil society? It could be the way we view this resource that is part of the problem.

INTRODUCTIONAs deliberations over the governance of water continues at the national level in Australia, the fate of the most vulnerable of our water sources remains buried deep in the machinations of “reform in progress”. In the wake of Australia’s coal seam gas boom, the rise of people power through social media and the divestment movement, and Australia’s mandate to increase agricultural and resource productivity, the relative paucity of practical governance stands in stark contrast to the importance this hidden resource plays in society. Out of sight, out of mind couldn’t be more relevant. Australia will need to better regulate and manage this resource so that national priorities (the triple bottom line, social, environmental and economic objectives) can be achieved. Efforts will need to be coordinated, cost effective, and streamlined. The crux of the matter is to share it fairly: for production, agricultural and environmental purposes, while also providing amenity for the many Australians who rely on it for life-sustaining, recreational and other societal purposes.

Water Security is a Real Risk. The fundamental necessities for a civil society can be distilled to this: a reliable source of energy, access to good quality food and a plentiful supply of clean drinking water. Stop any one of these and unrest will inevitably result. Perhaps the most obvious factor in disrupting this balance is the effects of a changing

climate. Given water’s critical role, how a nation governs and manages its groundwater resources is linked to that nation’s security and welfare. For this and so many reasons, stewardship of our groundwater must remain a priority particularly in Australia where we are already prone to droughts and the vagaries of climate extremes and therefore water availability.

So what are the governance issues that should be of concern to directors and company officers whose activities, services or products could contribute to its impairment? Is the overarching governance of this natural asset currently effective? This article argues why effective governance should be at the centre of keeping this precious natural resource in good order, avoiding over-drawing and keeping it clean for future generations.

In my view, the challenges of governing groundwater are three-fold. Firstly that it is the least understood of the water sources. Secondly, pressures on maintaining its quality and usage rates have risen dramatically in recent times, requiring a new level of governance. Thirdly, its overall governance (and opportunity for its greater integration) could be described as a “work-in-progress” at best. Facing and tackling these issues will be important for a water-secure future.

GROUNDWATER IS THE LEAST UNDERSTOOD OF THE WATER SOURCESAs an agricultural scientist by training, I am curious to know why and how a production system breaks down, and equally, how we fix it. This requires the investment of measurement and assessment. But with groundwater, there are many divergent views and inconsistencies to the point I suspect it has become “all too hard”. There are many reasons for this. Groundwater is a finite resource. It is replenished when surface water seeps into aquifers or when recharged from surrounding aquifers. This process of replenishment is called recharge. Aquifers become depleted if groundwater extraction rates exceed recharge rates (from surface water and surrounding aquifers). Aquifer depletion affects communities, agriculture and the industries that rely on groundwater supplies. Overdrawn reserves can also affect the environment. For example, by reducing river flows that depend on flows from shallow groundwater, or by drying out ecosystems such as some wetlands that depend on groundwater to maintain water levels. The aquifers that feed rivers and wetlands are usually shallow or “watertable” aquifers and watertable heights in these aquifers are variable, driven by climate more than any other factor.

Measuring and assessing risks. But herein lies part of the challenge: knowing which systems are more vulnerable than others. Therefore understanding the basic processes as

5352

CO

NTR

IBU

TED A

RTIC

LES

well as the factors that can affect its quantity (availability) and quality, its interplay between agriculture and extractive industries, is of vital importance in its management. The current methods of risk assessment do not appear to be working such as the frameworks provided by state governments which put emphasis on ecological risk assessment (see for example NSW at www.water.nsw.gov.au). I suspect they are designed to address the technical, and not the more complex and nuanced factors that define social, environmental and financial attributes, and they tend to address localised issues. Not a criticism per se but it does represent a problem if we want to address the management of the resource nationally.

Models are helping and are getting better. A groundwater model represents an approximation of an underground system. Groundwater models are, by definition, a simplification of the more complex reality, and have limited effectiveness for supporting the regulatory and management processes. Their effectiveness depends on the data put in. This is expensive, and by and large, is driven by corporate interests for compliance reasons, or for their own requirements. While this all helps contribute to understanding and protecting the resource, it is far from an integrated approach and limits a holistic understanding of its condition.

PRESSURES ON MAINTAINING THE QUALITY AND USAGE RATES HAVE RISEN DRAMATICALLYGroundwater is estimated to make up 98 per cent of the earth’s available fresh water. In Australia, groundwater is used throughout large areas of the country including the outback, where it is the only reliable source of water. Many Indigenous communities, mining operations and remote pastoral properties rely solely on it. Aquifers are a source of water for drinking, irrigation, stock supply, bottling and many other uses, accounting for over 30% of Australia’s

total water consumption. As industrial, resource (extractive industries) and agricultural development in Australia increases, so too does the demand for groundwater. In some parts of the country, the current rate of groundwater extraction is depleting the resource faster than it is being recharged. To illustrate the magnitude of potential negative effects, groundwater extractions in the Murray Darling Basin increased by around 50% over a recent two year period because drought reduced the availability of surface water (www.mdba.gov.au).

GOVERNANCE OF GROUNDWATER IS A “WORK-IN-PROGRESS” AT BESTWhat are the implications of all this for corporate governance? Understanding the regulatory regime and its elements, relative to the business you are in, which I refer to as governance in its broadest sense, is a good starting point. There are numerous mechanisms in place that all aim to govern groundwater use and its protection from both contamination and over-extraction. One of these (which is emerging as more of a constraint, not from a data-driven perspective, but equally has an important role), is the social license to operate (or SLO). It is not to be misunderstood as it has the power to completely change priorities on how we manage this resource.

The role of the government has been in setting policy as it relates to quality and usage, including the governance of markets (for it). Ongoing reform is happening at all levels (of government), but it is particularly evident at the Commonwealth level. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) has had a water reform agenda. Even though the National Water Commission has recently been disbanded, the reform is taking a new shape and groundwater will be part of that. With much of the funding for our groundwater initiatives coming from the Commonwealth, and that source being under pressure to meet the needs of an increasing range of stakeholders, the further reductions are concerning. I think it is reasonable to say that the Commonwealth’s role in its reform is a work in progress at best.

CONCLUSIONSAs the Former Army Deputy Chief of Staff and Governor General of Australia, Michael Jeffery, reported recently in The Australian, it is concerning that “about half of our water is lost by evaporation”. But there are no surprises here when you consider our water management infrastructure is European-centric in design yet built in the world’s driest inhabited country. But this only reinforces the concerns raised here about groundwater. It is a critical resource for now and into the future and should be governed with that level of priority.

CO

NTR

IBU

TED A

RTIC

LES

Michael Jeffery rightly argues that we need better water efficiency, more recycling of urban water and underground storage. Specifically he challenges us:

A further way to manage our water is through the use of underground dams — also known as water banking or managed aquifer recharge — where excess water is pumped into a convenient aquifer in the wet season, then pumped up again for agricultural use or to water a city in the dry. Storing our water underground, where it can’t evaporate and is naturally cleansed, is a thoroughly Australian solution to a classically Australian problem. Let’s do more of it. By storing more water in our landscapes and soils, and in aquifers beneath our farms and cities, by recycling and wise conjunctive management of all water sources, we can ensure a water-safe future in a world becoming less water- secure by the day. The knowledge embodied in this “blue revolution” will become one of our greatest exports — potentially worth billions — as well as our humanitarian contribution to nations facing acute water scarcity.

These are ideas – which in essence are examples of what managed aquifer recharge is about - are core to the concerns raised here on groundwater governance. It is true groundwater initiatives are being pursued already with varied levels of adoption and success. But with the staggering rates of change in water demands, stresses on ecosystems as well as human requirements in some areas (e.g., Broken Hill in NSW) and the need for Australia to boost its agricultural productivity and to enable a more sustainable extractive industry, the need for bringing the regulatory system and all appropriate governance processes into alignment is now surely a priority.

As with so many interdependent systems, we have to be careful not to over simplify the extent of the challenge. Most of the groundwater in Australia is of a low quality (high salt concentrations) and we have to be very careful putting high quality rainwater into lower quality aquifers.

Can the application of technology and innovation help solve our groundwater problems? Most definitely, it needs to be part of the solution, and I think Australia is well up to the challenge. Not being able to see it is not a reason to let it slip through the cracks as a national priority.

FURTHER INFORMATIONState Governments and Industry Sectors

■ As with most environmental issues, it is the State EPAs that have the “teeth” to regulate water usage and quality through legislation and licences. States have groundwater management areas that are restricted in their use and quality maintained by groundwater management plans. It is not unusual for state EPAs

to issue notices or prosecutions on companies that illegally extract water without licence (or beyond their licences) and require clean-up programs to remediate groundwater that has been demonstrated to become contaminated as a result of corporate business activity. Also companies will undertake testing though for their own benefit driven usually by corporate transactions to demonstrate due diligence prior to acquisition or divestment (see also under Company Level below).

■ NSW Government has a serious investment in monitoring, understanding, regulating and sharing information on groundwater with more than 5000 bores in its network. Here, approximately 11% of all water used comes from groundwater sources. It is used for drinking water, irrigation, watering stock, and domestic and industrial purposes. For more than 200 towns in NSW, groundwater is the principal source of water supply. An estimated 13% of the groundwater used in NSW goes to domestic and stock purposes meaning that it is critical that quality and quantity of this resource is maintained.

■ In terms of the extractive industries, coal seam gas (CSG) activity has been regulated at a state level. It is the states that establish moratoria on CSG activity and this is part of the process of protecting our resources. CSG in NSW has been reviewed extensively and a report published by the State’s Chief Scientist providing a science-based view of the risks and challenges for the industry. Although the depths from which coal seam gas is extracted are generally relatively remote from surface water processes, the potential impacts on flows in surface streams and rivers are of great community interest, as well as interaction between aquifers which has long been subject to debate in the heavy industry and extractive industries.

■ Innovation and technology has always had a role in environmental management and collaboration is an important way to drive this and be sure to visit the Australian Water Association’s website.